Erdős–Fuchs theorem

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description In mathematics, in the area of additive number theory, the Erdős–Fuchs theorem is a statement about the number of ways that numbers can be represented as a sum of elements of a given additive basis, stating that the average order of this number cannot be too close to being a linear function.

The theorem is named after Paul Erdős and Wolfgang Heinrich Johannes Fuchs, who published it in 1956.[1]

Statement

Let 𝒜⊆ℕ be an infinite subset of the natural numbers and r𝒜,h(n) its representation function, which denotes the number of ways that a natural number n can be expressed as the sum of h elements of 𝒜 (taking order into account). We then consider the accumulated representation function s𝒜,h(x):=∑n⩽xr𝒜,h(n), which counts (also taking order into account) the number of solutions to k1+⋯+kh⩽x, where k1,…,kh∈𝒜. The theorem then states that, for any given c>0, the relation s𝒜,2(n)=cn+o(n1/4log⁡(n)−1/2) cannot be satisfied; that is, there is no 𝒜⊆ℕ satisfying the above estimate.

Theorems of Erdős–Fuchs type

The Erdős–Fuchs theorem has an interesting history of precedents and generalizations. In 1915, it was already known by G. H. Hardy[2] that in the case of the sequence 𝒬:={0,1,4,9,…} of perfect squares one has lim supn→+∞|s𝒬,2(n)−πn|n1/4log⁡(n)1/4>0 This estimate is a little better than that described by Erdős–Fuchs, but at the cost of a slight loss of precision, P. Erdős and W. H. J. Fuchs achieved complete generality in their result (at least for the case h=2). Another reason this result is so celebrated may be due to the fact that, in 1941, P. Erdős and P. Turán[3] conjectured that, subject to the same hypotheses as in the theorem stated, the relation s𝒜,2(n)=cn+O(1) could not hold. This fact remained unproven until 1956, when Erdős and Fuchs obtained their theorem, which is even stronger than the previously conjectured estimate.

Improved versions for h = 2

This theorem has been extended in a number of different directions. In 1980, A. Sárközy[4] considered two sequences which are "near" in some sense. He proved the following:

  • Theorem (Sárközy, 1980). If 𝒜={a1<a2<…} and ℬ={b1<b2<…} are two infinite subsets of natural numbers with ai−bi=o(ai1/2log⁡(ai)−1), then |{(i,j):ai+bj⩽n}|=cn+o(n1/4log⁡(n)−1/2) cannot hold for any constant c>0.

In 1990, H. L. Montgomery and R. C. Vaughan[5] were able to remove the log from the right-hand side of Erdős–Fuchs original statement, showing that s𝒜,2(n)=cn+o(n1/4) cannot hold. In 2004, Gábor Horváth[6] extended both these results, proving the following:

  • Theorem (Horváth, 2004). If 𝒜={a1<a2<…} and ℬ={b1<b2<…} are infinite subsets of natural numbers with ai−bi=o(ai1/2) and |𝒜∩[0,n]|−|ℬ∩[0,n]|=O(1), then |{(i,j):ai+bj⩽n}|=cn+o(n1/4) cannot hold for any constant c>0.

General case (h ≥ 2)

The natural generalization to Erdős–Fuchs theorem, namely for h⩾3, is known to hold with same strength as the Montgomery–Vaughan's version. In fact, M. Tang[7] showed in 2009 that, in the same conditions as in the original statement of Erdős–Fuchs, for every h⩾2 the relation s𝒜,h(n)=cn+o(n1/4) cannot hold. In another direction, in 2002, Gábor Horváth[8] gave a precise generalization of Sárközy's 1980 result, showing that

  • Theorem (Horváth, 2002) If 𝒜(j)={a1(j)<a2(j)<…} (j=1,…,k) are k (at least two) infinite subsets of natural numbers and the following estimates are valid:
  1. ai(1)−ai(2)=o((ai(1))1/2log⁡(ai(1))−k/2)
  2. |𝒜(j)∩[0,n]|=Θ(|𝒜(1)∩[0,n]|) (for j=3,…,k)
then the relation:
|{(i1,…,ik):ai1(1)+…+aik(k)⩽n,aij(j)∈𝒜(j)(j=1,…,k)}|=cn+o(n1/4log⁡(n)1−3k/4)
cannot hold for any constant c>0.

Non-linear approximations

Yet another direction in which the Erdős–Fuchs theorem can be improved is by considering approximations to s𝒜,h(n) other than cn for some c>0. In 1963, Paul T. Bateman, Eugene E. Kohlbecker and Jack P. Tull[9] proved a slightly stronger version of the following:

  • Theorem (Bateman–Kohlbecker–Tull, 1963). Let L(x) be a slowly varying function which is either convex or concave from some point onward. Then, on the same conditions as in the original Erdős–Fuchs theorem, we cannot have s𝒜,2(n)=nL(n)+o(n1/4log⁡(n)−1/2L(n)α), where α=3/4 if L(x) is bounded, and 1/4 otherwise.

At the end of their paper, it is also remarked that it is possible to extend their method to obtain results considering nγ with γ≠1, but such results are deemed as not sufficiently definitive.

See also

References

Template:Reflist

Further reading